Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The influence of trust in the Nicaraguan
Learning Alliance on capacity development of
members and other influenced groups
Dirk Landmann, Göttingen University
Jean-Joseph Cadilhon, International Livestock Research Institute
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Nicaraguan Learning Alliance
3. Literature review and objectives
4. Conceptual framework and hypothesis
5. Data collection and methods
6. Data analysis
7. Discussion and Conclusion
2
1. Introduction
• 2nd poorest country of Latin America
• 22% of GDP comes from agricultural production
• 28% people working in agricultural sector
• 4,124 agricultural cooperatives
• NGO, Government and private sector is focusing on agricultural sector and agricultural development
Nueva Segovia
Madriz
Chinandega
Leon
Managua
Masaya
Matagalpa
Estelí
(Source: Lafortezza and Consorzio 2009).
3
Producers
Coop 1st level
Union Coop
1st level Association
Coop 1st level
Association Coop
2nd level Coop
2nd level Union
Nicaraguan Learning Alliance- NLA
Regional Org.
Regional Org.
CATIE
CATIE Matagalpa
...
Coop 1st level
Coop 2nd level
FUNICA Esteli
FUNICA
2. Nicaraguan Learning Alliance
(Source: own data base)
Learning Alliance: • Method and
Guides about business and markets
4
3. Literature review and research objectives
Innovation platforms = Learning alliances • “social learning” - interactive process between different stakeholders • “innovation systems” - changes of a process
5
(Source: Homann-Kee Tui et al. 2013; Lundy and Gottret 2005; Pali and Swaans 2013)
Capacity development • Dependent of principles, dimensions, actors, levels, environment and strategies • In the agricultural content often set as training activities and workshops
Trust • Expected outcome of a certain event or action • Complicated and multifaceted concept (Source: Laeequddin et al. 2010)
(Source: Bolger 2000, Hall 2007, Horton et al. 2003, Watson 2010)
• Monitor and evaluate the impact of innovation platform on value chains • Analysis of relationships between platform organization and conduct, and selected outcomes • Refine and test conceptual framework for monitoring and evaluation of platforms
Lite
ratu
re r
evie
w
Ob
ject
ives
4. Conceptual framework and research hypotheses
Performance Structure Conduct
(Source: Cadilhon 2013)
6
IP- Structure Individual Structure External environment
Conduct of IP members • Information sharing • Communication • Trust • …
Value chain Performance • Value chain development • Capacity Development • … Other objectives set by IP
Research hypotheses 1. Structure of the platform influences conduct of its participants, which in turn influences its performance 2. The more trust there is among actors in a platform the better the performance of the platform 3. Members of the Learning Alliance have had better capacity development opportunities than non-members
Based on: New institutional economics, new industrial organization and marketing concept
5. Data collection and methods
7
(Source: Rocchigiani and Herbel 2013)
Focus Group Discussions
3 Non-members
3 NLA members
Key Informants Interviews
13 Non-members
7 NLA members
Individual Questionnaire
52 Non-members
38 NLA members
53 Likert scale statements
Method of Data analysis
• Descriptive analysis • Factor analysis • Multiple linear regression analysis
6. Data analysis- descriptive statistics
8
Variable Description (90 respondents)
Org
aniz
atio
n Memberships 70 participate in two or more organizations
Activities 85 service providers; 74 producers; 69 traders; 57 financial organizations; 50 processors; 3 research institutes
Most important source of funding
37 NGO; 25 operation-generated cash; 10 membership fees; 7 government
(Source: Own data collection)
No statistically significant difference between members and non-members (all levels)
Cooperatives influenced by the NLA agreed more on: • Information of NLA is useful • Gained knowledge and skills applicable in the last six years from NLA
6.1 Data analysis- regression analysis
9
Dependent Variable: Factor: Innovation
Independent Variables Coefficients
t Sig. Unstd. Std.
B Std. Error Beta (Constant) -1.709 .907 -1.883 .064
Stru
ctu
re Years working for the organization .044 .013 .294 3.381 .001
Connection with NLA .249 .177 .124 1.405 .164
Position of the Organization inside the network -.131 .065 -.178 -2.010 .048
Co
nd
uct
1. We usually share information about production with other stakeholders. .172 .117 .130 1.467 .147
11. The NLA/ our organization exchange information about their on-going activities with us. .208 .123 .167 1.690 .095
13. We plan our activities together with the NLA/ our organization according to our production potential and customer demand
-.260 .115 -.224 -2.265 .026
14. Our viewpoints are taken into account by the NLA/ our organization when they plan their activities.
.028 .142 .022 .201 .842
15. Joint planning of activities with the NLA/ our organization has improved in the last six years. .447 .126 .378 3.541 .001 10. We prefer to have long term relationships. -.174 .125 -.127 -1.387 .169 Factor: Trustful relationships .252 .096 .248 2.613 .011 Factor: Trustful Contracts .230 .091 .231 2.532 .013
Model summary: R square: 0.480 Adjusted R square: 0.404 ANOVA: Sig.: 0.000 VIF values: < 5 (Source: Field 2009)
7. Discussion and conclusion
• Judging by the way it works, NLA does not fit the definition of a learning alliance
• “social learning” should be an interactive process between different stakeholders
• Large demand for, and variety of offers in the sector of capacity development
• Government is not open for cooperation with NGO‘s or private sector
• NLA is successful with their cascading capacity development method
• NLA is not more successful than other actors in capacity development activities
10
• Conceptual framework was not directly designed for NLA
• Conceptual framework based on Likert scale statements
• No economic indicators to strengthen data and results
• Influence of structure on trust is very poor
• General influence between structure, conduct and performance is nonetheless visible
• Trust and capacity development are important topics in the NLA training content
NLA
C
on
cep
tual
fr
amew
ork
This work was undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) led by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Funding support for this study was provided by the CGIAR Research Program on Humidtropics and the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets. This
presentation has not gone through IFPRI’s standard peer-review procedure. The opinions expressed here belong to the authors, and
do not necessarily reflect those of PIM, IFPRI, or CGIAR.
11
Questions?
Dirk Landmann: [email protected]
Jean-Joseph Cadilhon: [email protected]
Comments? Suggestions?
12
References • AdA. 2014. “Alianza de Aprendizaje.” Accessed November 21, 2014. http://www.alianzasdeaprendizaje.org/portal/index.php.
• Bolger, Joe. 2000. “Capacity Development.” CIDA, Policy Branch Vol. 1, No. 1. http://www.hiproweb.org/fileadmin/cdroms/Biblio_Renforcement/documents/Chapter-1/Chap1Doc1.pdf. Accessed November 23, 2014.
• Cadilhon, Jean-Joseph. 2013. A conceptual framework to evaluate the impact of innovation platforms on agrifood value chains development. Ghent. Accessed July 17, 2014.
• FAOSTAT. 2014. “Nicaragua.” Accessed February 12, 2014. http://faostat.fao.org/CountryProfiles/Country_Profile/Direct.aspx?lang=en&area=157.
• Field, Andy P. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. Introducing statistical methods. Los Angeles [i.e. Thousand Oaks, Calif.], London: SAGE Publications.
• Hall, Andy. 2007. “Challenges to Strenthening Agricultural Innovation Systems: Where Do We Go From Here?” United Nations University- UNU-MERIT. http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=9401. Accessed November 23, 2014.
• Homann-Kee Tui, Sabine, Adewale Adekunle, Mark Lundy, Josephine Tucker, Eliud Birachi, Marc Schut, Laurens Klerkx et al. 2013. “What are innovation platforms?” Innovation platforms practice brief 1. Accessed April 21, 2014.
• Horton, Douglas, Anastasia Alexaki, Samuel Bennett-Lartey, Kim Noële Brice, Dindo Campilan, Fred Carden, José de Souza Silva et al. 2003. Evaluating capacity development: Experiences from research and development organizations around the world. Hague, Ottawa, ON, Wageningen, the Netherlands: International Service for National Agricultural Research; International Development Research Centre; ACP-EU Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation. http://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=de&lr=&id=IroqdhQd0goC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=capacity+development&ots=7BgHiHHe_n&sig=8lKTIOMu_c18-eSeknnrboU7kkA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=capacity%20development&f=false.
• INTA. 2011. “GUÍA METODOLÓGICA DE ESCUELAS DE CAMPO PARA FACILITADORES Y FACILITADORAS EN EL PROCESO DE EXTENSIÓN AGROPECUARIA.” INTA- Instituto Nicaragüense de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Accessed December 07, 2014.
• Laeequddin, Mohammed, B.S. Sahay, Vinita Sahay, and K. Abdul Waheed. 2010. “Measuring trust in supply chain partners relationships.” Measuring Business Excellence (Vol. 14 Iss: 3): 53–69. Accessed November 22, 2014.
• Lafortezza, Daniela, and Etimos S.C. Consorzio. 2009. BCIE_2009_Nicaragua_Inventario de las cooperativas productivas. Accessed December 02, 2014.
• Lorio, Margarita, Maria Veronica Gottret, and Liana Santamaría. 2010. Cosechando los Frutos del Cambio Organizacional: 23 organizaciones que con esfuerzo y compromiso trabajan para mejorar el nivel de vida de sus comunidades: Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE). Accessed December 07, 2014.
• Lundy, Mark, and María Verónica Gottret. 2005. “Learning Alliances: An Approach for Building Multi-stakeholder Innovation Systems.” Accessed May 13, 2014.
• Nederlof, Suzanne, Mariana Wongtschowski, and Femke van der Lee, eds. 2011. Putting heads together: Agricultural innovation platforms in practice. Bulletin 396: Development, Policy & Practice: KIT Publishes. Accessed November 21, 2014. http://www.kit.nl/sed/wp-content/uploads/publications/1953_Putting%20heads%20together%20LR.pdf.
• Pali, Pamela, and Kees Swaans. 2013. Guidlines for innovation platforms: Facilitation, monitoring and evaluation. ILRI Manual 8. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). Accessed November 21, 2014. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/27871/ILRImanual8.pdf?sequence=4.
• Rocchigiani, Mariagrazia, and Denis Herbel. 2013. Organization analysis and development: FAO- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Accessed November 24, 2014.
• The World Bank Group. 2012. “The International Development Association and International Finance Corporation: Country Partnership Strategy (FY2013-2017) For The Republic of Nicaragua.” (Report No: 69231-NI). http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/10/24/000386194_20121024011712/Rendered/PDF/692310CAS0P1280Official0Use0Only090.pdf. Accessed December 02, 2014.
• Watson, David. 2010. “Improving on Results: Combining the ‘Best of Two Worlds’ in Monitoring and Evaluation of Capacity Development.” In Capacity development in practice, edited by Jan Ubels, Naa-Aku Acquaye-Baddoo, and Alan Fowler, 239–49. London, Washington, DC: Earthscan.
13
Producers
Coop 1st level
Union Coop
1st level Association
Coop 1st level
Association Coop
2nd level Coop
2nd level Union
Regional Org.
Regional Org.
Government
Regional Org.
Private sector
Coop 1st level
Coop 2nd level
Regional Org.
NLA
Nicaraguan agricultural institutional context
(Source: own data base)
14
Theoretical bases for the conceptual framework
Conceptual framework:
Monitor and evaluate the impact of innovation platform
on value chains
15
New institutional economics
• Recognizing markets as complex realities
• Market actors try to cut transaction costs
New industrial organization
• Overall logic of the SCP model (Structure-Conduct-Performance)
Marketing concepts
• Variables for each SCP-section adapted to the context of stakeholders
(Source: Cadilhon 2013)
Descriptive statistics of interviewees
16
Variable Description (90 respondents)
Inte
rvie
we
e Gender 67 men; 23 women
Level of education 56 university degrees; 12 tech. certificate; 10 postgrad; 8 secondary school; 3 primary school; 1 PhD
Position of respondent 23 presidents; 17 managers; 12 technicians; 10 tech. coordinators; 6 executive directors; 4 administrators; 18 others
Org
aniz
atio
n
Most important crop 41 coffee; 33 basic grains; 16 others
Memberships 70 participate in two or more organizations
Activities 85 service providers; 74 producers; 69 traders; 57 financial organizations; 50 processors; 3 research institutes
Most important source of funding 37 NGO; 25 operation-generated cash; 10 membership fees; 7 government
Position of the organization
inside the network
52 No NLA- member/ No connection; 38 NLA- member/ Connection
(Source: Own data collection)
More descriptive statistics of interviewees
17
Position of the organization
inside the network
No NLA- member/ No connection
NLA- member/ Connection
11 3 1
7
28
2
52
1 3 1 7
26
0
38
(Source: Own data collection)
90 respondents
• Average age is 44 years and worked 9 years for current organization
• 26 are focusing on one product
• 57 cooperatives, 14 associations, 8 NGOS, 5 private companies, 3 government, 2 public institutes
• 27 organizations have between 100 and 499 members, 26 org. have less than 100, largest org. represents 50,000 farmers
Appreciation of information sharing
18
Table 4: Appreciation of information sharing by cooperatives of second level
Level Cooperative of second level
Element Conduct- Information sharing
Statement 2. The information we get from the NLA/ our organization partner
is useful.*
NLA-Connection
No Member/
No Connection
Member/
Connection
Mean 4.29 4.86
Standard Deviation .49 .38
*Scale: 1= strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= undecided; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree
Means are statistically significantly different at a 5% level
(Source: Own data collection and analysis)
Capacity development at 2nd level coops
19
(Source: Own data collection and analysis)
Appreciation of capacity development by cooperatives of second level
Level Cooperative second Level
Element Performance- Capacity development
Statement 6. In the past six years, we have gained knowledge and skills
applicable in my activities from NLA stakeholders.*
NLA-Connection
No Member/
No Connection
Member/
Connection
Mean* 2.40 4.43
Standard Deviation 1.52 .53
* Scale: 1= strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= undecided; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree
Means are statistically significantly different at a 1% level
Capacity development at 1st level coops
20
Appreciation of capacity development by cooperatives of first level
Level Cooperative first Level
Element Performance- Capacity development
Statement 6. In the past six years, we have gained knowledge and skills applicable in
my activities from NLA stakeholders.*
NLA-Connection
No Member/
No Connection
Member/
Connection
Mean* 3.50 4.42
Standard Deviation 1.73 .58
* Scale: 1= strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= undecided; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree
Means are statistically significantly different at a 5% level
(Source: Own data collection and analysis)
21
Evaluation of information received from NLA members
Element Conduct- Information sharing:
Statement 3. The information we get from the NLA is reliable.*
NLA-member Mean* Standard Deviation
FUNICA 4.50 .52
CATIE 4.57 .53
CRS 4.27 .47
FENACOOP 3.33* .58
* Scale: 1= strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= undecided; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree
Means are statistically significantly different at a 5% level
(Source: Own data collection and analysis)
Information sharing by NLA members
22
Appreciation of trust on products provided by the NLA
Element Conduct- Trust
Statement 8. Our trust on products provided by the NLA/ our organization has
increased.*
NLA-member Mean Standard Deviation
FUNICA 4.21 .70
CATIE 4.43 .53
CRS 4.00 .63
FENACOOP 2.67 .58
* Scale: 1= strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= undecided; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree
Means are statistically significantly different at a 1% level
(Source: Own data collection and analysis)
Trust in NLA products by NLA members
23
NLA- members- NLA is known to be successful
Element Conduct- Trust
Statement 13. The NLA is known to be successful at the things it tries to do.*
NLA-member Mean Standard Deviation
FUNICA 4.57 .51
CATIE 4.29 .49
CRS 4.18 .60
FENACOOP 3.33 .58
* Scale: 1= strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= undecided; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree
Means are statistically significantly different at a 5% level
(Source: Own data collection and analysis)
Success of NLA by NLA members
24
Communication of NLA- members with other organized groups
Element Performance- Advocacy:
Statement 2. Representatives of the NLA communicate their achievement in
other organized groups.*
NLA-member Mean Standard Deviation
FUNICA 4.29 .61
CATIE 4.43 .53
CRS 4.00 .63
FENACOOP 3.00 0.00
* Scale: 1= strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= undecided; 4= agree; 5= strongly agree
Means are statistically significantly different at a 5% level (Source: Own data collection and analysis)
Lobbying by NLA members
Factor Trust- Statement Factor loadings
Trustful relationships
4. The NLA/ our organization always keep their promises. .824 2. The NLA/ our organization always give us correct information. .715 5. The NLA/ our organization actions and behaviors are very consistent. .655 3. The NLA/ our organization always try to inform us if problem occurs. .617
Trustful communication
frequency
1. Trust is important for the activities with The NLA/ our organization. .840 6. The frequency of contact has a positive influence on the trust.
.836
Trustful contracts
9. We only develop relationship with business partners who are fair to us. .878
8. We only maintain relationship with our business partners with clearly written terms and conditions.
.799
25
Cronbach’s alpha: 0.79 (0.7 - 0.8); Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO): 0.669 (>0.600);
Bartlett’s test of Sphericity: 0.000 (<0.5); Eigenvalues: >1.0; Factor loading: >0.564
Factor analysis of trust component
Factor analysis of capacity development component
Factor Capacity development- Statement Factor
loadings
Investment and business development
1. In the past 6 years, we have had enough capital for doing new investments. .844 9. Annual income from business activities has been increasing in the past 6 years.
.840
10. We have changed to or entered another value chain in the last 6 years. .711
Innovation
5. We have developed new products in the last 6 years. .757 12. Our knowledge about our activity has improved in the past 6 years. .728
4. In the past 6 years, we have applied new techniques or machinery into our production, production process or management.
.699
26
Cronbach’s alpha: 0.800 (0.7 - 0.8); Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO): 0.746 (>0.600);
Bartlett’s test of Sphericity: 0.000 (<0.5); Eigenvalues: >1.0; Factor loading: >0.564
(Source: Field 2009/ Stevens 2002)
Regression of variables impacting trust
27
Model summary:
R square: 0.488
Adjusted R square: 0.350
ANOVA:
Sig.: 0.000
VIF values:
< 5
Dependent Variable: Factor: Trust and business relationship
Model
Coefficients
t Sig.
Unstd. Std.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) .293 .990 .296 .768
Level of education -.302 .123 -.281 -2.464 .016
Years working for the organization .025 .014 .162 1.752 .084
Percentage of male Producers which are members of your organization co influenced by it .015 .005 .288 2.919 .005
Position of the Organization inside the network -.197 .088 -.260 -2.230 .029
Connection with NLA? -.279 .211 -.138 -1.321 .191
Did you ever leave a group/ IP/ Cooperative? -.349 .216 -.160 -1.612 .112
Are you in the producers business? .824 .384 .294 2.146 .036
Are you in the trading business? -.689 .337 -.273 -2.047 .045
Are you in the funding agency business? 1.411 .665 .212 2.123 .037
Are active as a financial organization? .668 .246 .314 2.710 .009
The most important source of funding is operation generated cash. -.525 .238 -.235 -2.204 .031
The most important source of funding is the government. -.579 .429 -.135 -1.349 .182
The most important source of funding are membership fees. -.908 .316 -.290 -2.870 .005
The most important source of funding are Credits by the private sector. -.418 .300 -.139 -1.396 .167
3. Have you ever shared business/production information with others? .687 .405 .174 1.698 .094
The most important channel of communication is the mobile phone. -.839 .465 -.398 -1.805 .076
The most important channel of communication is the computer. .139 .469 .066 .296 .768
The most important channel of communication are meetings. -.174 .478 -.074 -.363 .717
Regression of variables impacting innovation
28
Model summary: R square: 0.282 Adjusted R square: 0.243
ANOVA: Sig.: 0.000 VIF values: < 5
Dependent Variable: Factor: Innovation
Model (ONLY Structure variables)
Coefficients
t Sig.
Unstd. Std.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) -1.120 .483 -2.317 .023
Years working for the organization .060 .015 .408 4.066 .000
What is the position of your partner in the network? -.105 .068 -.153 -1.545 .127
Did you ever leave a group/ IP/ Cooperative? -.480 .210 -.224 -2.285 .025
3. Have you ever shared business/production information with others? 1.170 .376 .314 3.112 .003